“A provider do, when on her regional board, every time she places her ad threads...several provider's cronies and shills, bash her and try to deter prospective clients from seeing her?

Also, when they backchannel by posting untrue and libelous remarks about the provider in PM's to those that seem interested in possibly dating her?  This fact just surfaced, when a hateful PM was sent to a potential client...but, he just so happened to be a friend of the providers, and he told her about the untrue and libelous remarks.”

      For legal advice as to a specific problem you should consult a licensed attorney in your state and not rely on anything you read in the Legal Corner.

     Addressing the problem in the abstract I would invite discussion on the following.  As a general rule, anytime D makes  false and defamatory written comments about P to a third party that cause injury to P’s reputation, P has a civil action against D to recover damages for defamation. This remains true as to P’s stage name so long as the persons reading the defamatory material understand the defamation to refer to P, and remains true if D is also using a stage name to make the comments.

        When the defamatory statements defame P in her lawful trade or business, or impute a loathsome disease to her, the statements are deemed defamatory per se and P is allowed to sue and recover damages for harm to her reputation without actually proving that she lost business as a result.

       Where D’s false statements also cause P to lose prospective business, P also has a cause of action against D for interference with prospective contract. So to the extent that P is providing PURELY LEGAL ESCORT or professional companion services, the legal remedies are there. But lawsuits are so expensive and time consuming that they are not practical unless (a) the amount of damages that P could expect to recover is significant- probably over $20,000; and (b) D has the assets or liability insurance to pay the judgment.

         If P on occasion crosses the line and provides illegal escort services, then pursuing any kind of legal remedy for defamation makes no sense bc P will be deposed and forced to admit under oath that she has violated the law.  Witnesses as to her good reputation as an escort also will be less than thrilled to testify on her behalf. And I think TER would cast a dim view of one member filing a legal action against another based on material posted on the Boards or in PMs. And, of course, the entire lawsuit turns a spotlight on P’s business that LE is sure to notice.

      But that’s just my view. What says the Board?

regarding lible for an illicit activity.

Somehow, I doubt it.

(still not a lawyer)

I'm not a lawyer, but legal action reguarding an illegal activity seems like a poor course of action.  
skb

It's not unlike the drug dealer complaining that someone stole a kilo of coke from his trunk. Who would ever do such a stupid thing?

As far as defamatory remarks, my best advice would be to clear them up publicly and alert everyone to the fact that, shockingly enough, sometimes people will lie about others.  

Even if her business is entirely legitimate, it would be almost impossible for her to win this case because, as previously pointed out, she will be under oath.  A single over the line evening would finish her, and even the suggestion of it from a client would do her enormous damage.

My best suggestion is to let it go.  There's no point in making a mess for yourself with little hope for any serious gain.

we all recall the "McDonalds coffee was too hot and burned me" lawsuit, right?

even if you did have a case, you would still have to prove it, and it will be costly.

I would tend to agree with your views, mari, even though I had to read it 3 times, lol.

Just to add:
TER is not under jurisdiction to be served a subpoena and therefore not subject to the discovery process. I believe any PM's on TER would be inadmissible because they cannot be authenticated.

Clearly to base a defamation lawsuit on anything said on an internet discussion board the plaintiff would have to identify the true name of the defaming poster - you would not know who to sue otherwise.

      Unless there is a statute that protects internet content providers from third party discovery (and I could just be unaware of this), I do not see how any any internet content provider could avoid being served by a subpoena. They can always move to quash but I'm not sure they would have grounds.

      And, in a federal lawsuit, the subpoena power is effectively nationwide in civil cases, although the subpoena would have to issue from the fed ct wherein the content provider was located.

        If not subject to a third party subpoena, however,  you are correct - that would make the legal issues moot bc you could not identify the defendant much less authenticate the post or PM.

Some moron staying in a Ft Lauderdale hotel reported an ounce of cocaine missing. When the police arrived with a baggie containing about a 1/2 ounce of coke, they asked him if it belonged to him. He replied "Yeah it's mine, but theres a whole lot missing" Naturally they arrested him on the spot.

Some people are just too stupid to be allowed in public unsupervised.

Intiating a libel suit under the circumstances described would be equally as stupid, with the same potential consequences. That said, I am sure some moron will try it. I await the results on "Americas dumbest criminals" lol

and outside the juridiction of an American court.

       Without addressing TER in particular, my view is that any
foreign internet content provider will still be subject to discovery
under either of two approaches

      1. A subpoena could be served on anyone in the US who has a legal right to access the information, such as the company's president;

       2. Being outside the US does not insulate a corporqtion from the jurisdiction of US courts if it has minimum contacts with the US, as would be true with any ICP who has US members. Indeed foreign car manufacturers are routinely sued in US courts.

      3. The Hague Convention provides a procedure for serving a subpoena on foreign companies.


       So it could be done unless Ego Check was referring to some statute that shields an ICP from such discovery. But the lawsuit idea is just not practical unless completely legal escort services have been provided and the damages recoverable are so substantial as to justify the enormous cost.